As to RFRA, There is the possibility that the court will find that fixing the health care crisis is not a compelling government interest, but given the language in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), i think its a bar that could be hurdled.

Carn:Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

Look, I don't think contraception/abortion coverage in a health plan makes the owners of the company "responsible" in the eyes of God in any way, shape or form - so they all need to farking take a breath and stop this nonsense...

BUT...

Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!

That's like saying "I'm not paying my employees a million dollars a year - so I'm making decisions on where they can live, and what kind of car they can drive."

Mike_LowELL:I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

Cyberluddite:More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

What I really want to know is how a corporation (not the individuals who own it, but the corporation, a distinct legal entity) forms a personal relationship with a divine being. And, if a corporation is a person, will I be prosecuted for homicide if I dissolve a corporation? Where does its soul go when it has dissolved? So many questions.

BravadoGT:Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.7000 shares are owned by the general public.The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG (read that more than once before proceeding) I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse. I also think that you are horribly misguided if you want these services as a condition of your employment and then go to work for a company like HL.

It seems to me that there is only one subject where people should be allowed to make their own choice.

The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees. In any case, we as a society have deemed some things more important than the exercise of free religion, notably in things like the Civil Rights Act. Even if your religion says that black people wear the stain of Cain (or Abel, I have no idea) you still have to let them in the door if you operate a public establishment.

Even if your religion says that Muslims are heretical terrorists, you still can't fire one because they're Muslim.

Cubicle Jockey:BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.7000 shares are owned by the general public.The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.

No Company has to provide health insurance for their employees; never have. They do it because they get a tax break and its part of competitive compensation packages.

hervatski:You can't force a person to do something but you can't also allow them to NOT give something they are due. Does that make sense?

If the affordable Care act says "you give people contraceptives and they have to take it" that means Youre forcing the company to actively force itself on someone, which isn't right.

But the law says the company cannot deny care that the person requires. I think that's where its gonna come down to.

here's my argument.

that money is not the corporation's money. it's the employee's money. it's their deferred compensation. the company you work for should not be allowed to tell you what you can or cannot buy with your own money.

I'm split. On the one hand, I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system HOWEVER, its forcing its belief system on its employees which is not right either. The argument can be made that if someone is working there by choice and could find work elsewhere...etc.

Its the forcing the company's religious beliefs (which it shouldn't have in the first place) on their workers which is incorrect. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care all that much about their religion but trying to find a loophole to not have to pay the benefits and save money to pad their profit margin.

I'm astounded when I watch CSPAN how many times religion is used as a platform. What happened to separation of church and state?

/I'm equally offended by all religions but uphold the ability for others to practice as they choose.//Just not on my lawn. Or in my uterus.

mithras_angel:So, if this were to pass through the Supreme Court, it would indicate that any corporation which has a religious objection to ~any~ law, would be able to file against that law, citing this case.

How long, then, before a corporation's executives creates a faith that has religious objections to paying taxes? I'll note that certain faiths (and certainly some wingnuts) have this belief already.

Where would this end?

Well, practically speaking, it's going to be exercised most when the Federal government is trying to take new action or impose new laws (aka take more power). When they are doing so and people can make a good-faith and well-documented complaint showing that it does infringe on their religious freedom, then I say good--the government's power SHOULD be checked by the courts. It deserves the extra scrutiny.

Never worked at a company with a healthcare plan that covered ED medications, unless they were prescribed to solve other non-ED issues.

Also, if a corporation's religous identity changes after they signed a contract, and the obligations of that contract are in opposition to their new religous convictions, would they be allowed to renege or null the contract?

I assume companies closely alligined with the Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist faiths would choose not to offer healthcare to employees, or they've worked with some insurance providers to develop a plan that meets their religous standard?

I'd say the best solution is to avoid working for religously affiliated companies, let them hire the dregs left to them from thier on theological perspective, and allow them to fail in the free market.

My company may not represent all my beliefs, but if they begin to become plain old evil or just stupid, they won't be my company for long. I'm not going down with any ship that has a dunce cap on their flag.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.

eurotrader:If taken to the asinine conclusion of the argument by Hobby lobby and their ilk, any person working for them must agree to all of their beliefs and since they belief providing payment as part of employee compensation for insurance means the employee has no right to private medical decisions; do for profit business have the right to install monitoring equipment in employee's home and person to insure they do not engage in any behavior the company finds distasteful? Can the companies track any monies paid to employees to insure they do not spend money on things like alcohol and condoms if the companies religion forbid them.

You can just stop at asinine. Employees are not required to adhere....only tolerate. If they are not willing to tolerate the limitations of the company benefits, they are welcome to find some other place to work.

DamnYankees:Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.

No Company has to provide health insurance for their employees; never have. They do it because they get a tax break and its part of competitive compensation packages.

You haven't been paying much attention for the last few years, have you?

ACA (Obamacare) requires a company to provide health insurance if they have enough employees (I think it's 50) or pay a fine.

Companies are getting around this by limiting the number of full time employees and going with a lot of part timers. Some are just saying "fark it, pay the fine", because it's cheaper.

While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG (read that more than once before proceeding) I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse. I also think that you are horribly misguided if you want these services as a condition of your employment and then go to work for a company like HL.

It seems to me that there is only one subject where people should be allowed to make their own choice.

Forcing them to what? Provide insurance? How is that different than forcing them to pay minimum wage, a safe work environment, unchained emergency exits, breaks in a 8 hour day etc. ?

And sure, in some happy unicorn world I can just choose the happyland never bad corp as my employer and not choose scumbag asshole corp. But that world doesn't exist, fark-o.

DamnYankees:Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: No, in light of the VRA decision, one of the all time worst opinions in court history, the court seems to have completely gone of the deep end and said "fark it, we're just gonna make shiat up entirely", but that's how its supposed to work at least.

No argument with you there. The VRA decision is going to down in history on par with other decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as a "what the hell were they thinking?"

I think its worse in purely legal terms than Plessy. Plessy was a terrible decision in that the legal logic used to uphold separate but equal actually did make abstract sense, it just didn't match the empirical reality that separate wasn't actually equal. The VRA decision is just nonsense, without any constitutional basis for it.

Is there any actual rule that says the Supreme Court is supposed to base its decisions on actual evidence, as opposed to just making stuff up based on whatever vague hunches the Justices have about the world outside their chambers?

Torgo_of_Manos:Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Irving Maimway:Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?

Other people can own them, dismember them, abandon them, dissolve them . . . . Not really anything like what you can actually do with a person. But they're people anyway. If you don't believe the Supreme Court, then take Mitt Romney's word on it.

Coastalgrl:I'm split. On the one hand, I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system HOWEVER, its forcing its belief system on its employees which is not right either. The argument can be made that if someone is working there by choice and could find work elsewhere...etc.

Its the forcing the company's religious beliefs (which it shouldn't have in the first place) on their workers which is incorrect. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care all that much about their religion but trying to find a loophole to not have to pay the benefits and save money to pad their profit margin.

I'm astounded when I watch CSPAN how many times religion is used as a platform. What happened to separation of church and state?

/I'm equally offended by all religions but uphold the ability for others to practice as they choose.//Just not on my lawn. Or in my uterus.

Mike_LowELL:I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

Cyberluddite:More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

would that not mean, then, that if the corporation was compelled to pay for contraception coverage, that it would not infringe on the religious beliefs of the individuals running the company, because it would be the corporate person who's religious beliefs the coverage would be measured against right? Good luck then determining what the religion is of the corporation then, but I don't recall much from the bible about how businesses get into heaven.

Dear lord, please allow this ruling to give me the ability to have chiropractors be ineligible to be the directing "physician" for withers comp claims. Will gladly start my own religion for this.

/in twenty years have yet to see a treatment plan that didn't involve weekly visits to said chiropractor. A hundred different kinds of injuries and they all need the same treatment from the same guy - what are the odds?

Cubicle Jockey:BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.7000 shares are owned by the general public.The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.